HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ( in short, ‘the Act’) challenging  the order No. 3 dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nadia in connection with  consumer complaint No. CC/18/2023. 

2. The complainant Smt. Sumita Roy filed a consumer complaint against the respondents / opposite parties praying for the following reliefs :-

“i) Pay Rs.50,00,000/- to the Complainant for causing damage to the baby by administering expired vaccine.

ii) Pay Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant towards cost of litigation.

iii) Pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the District Consumer Welfare Fund.

iv) Entitle the Complainant to any other relief deemed to be fit and proper.“

3. It is alleged that the complainant paid Rs.3900/- towards fees of the opposite party No. 1 for vaccination as per common practice and such payment was made on good faith. It appears from the record that the complainant has not produced any document in support of such claim.

4. After hearing the Learned Advocate appearing for the complainant in full, the complaint case was dismissed as not maintainable by the order impugned.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

6. The Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has urged that the Learned Commission below failed to appreciate and failed to consider that an affidavit is a legal document which is used as a proof of the accuracy of its content and the complainant on oath swearing affidavit has stated that an amount of Rs.3900/- has been paid to the opposite parties for vaccination of the baby.

7. He has further urged that the Learned Commission below failed to appreciate and failed to consider that it is the convention to pay fees to doctors without obtaining any money receipt from him. So, the appeal should be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside.

8. To adjudicate this issue we deem it appropriate to consider the provision of section 2(7)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which runs as follows :-

“consumer” means any person who –

“buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose;“

9. On plain reading of the said provision it appears to us that in absence of any payment or consideration, the consumer does not acquire any right to complain under the law.

10. No one can file a case in the Consumer Commission without a valid cash memo or money receipt which is proof of payment. There is need to prove that he is a consumer by providing proof of payment. A cash memo or a money receipt is a voucher issued by the service provider. The system is simple and effective for every day. It is legal document and all transactions made using a cash memo are valid. It is a testament to all services done by the service provider suitable for a small business where business volume is low and natural. In this case the complainant has not produced any document to prove that he has paid Rs.3900/- towards fees to the opposite party No. 1. Then it can be said that the complainant has failed to prove that he has paid Rs.3900/- to the opposite party No. 1.

11. Under these facts and circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the Learned District Commission below has rightly held that the complaint is not maintainable.

12. Learned Lawyer appearing for the complainant has relied upon the judgment cited in 1996 AIR 550. However, reliance upon the judgment in the adjudication of this case, the facts being at variance, should be misplaced.

13. In such a situation, we are inclined to hold that the judgment passed by the Learned District Commission below calls for no interference by this Commission and, as such, it is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

14. In the result, the appeal be and the same is dismissed but without any order as to costs.

15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned District Commission below at once.

16. Office to comply.